andrew weaver

Despite having a short (eight years as a professor) and undistinguished (five peer-reviewed publications in his lifetime) career as a geography professor at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Ball was able in the last 10 years to elevate himself to the level of self-appointed climate change expert. By working with energy industry lobby firms, he was able to insinuate himself as a would-be advisor to committees of the Canadian House of Commons and the the U.S. Senate. At one point, he presumed to send a letter directly to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, introducing himself as “one of the first climatology PhDs in the world,” - a claim so far from accurate as to be laughable.

By his activism, his constant and so-often ill-informed criticism of scientists who were actually working in the field of climate change, Ball had, by 2006, established himself as Canada’s pre-eminent global warming denier. The Globe and Mail called him “Mr. Cool,” although the accompanying feature was anything but complimentary.

If you haven’t signed up yet, go here to learn more about our book give-away. Its really easy to join and once you’re on the list you’re eligible to win every month for the entire year. So join up and please pass this on to anyone else who might be interested in books on global warming and environment issues.

In one of his periodic diatribes against science, scientists and any risk analyst who thinks that 95% certainty is enough to cause concern about global warming, the National Post's Peter Foster has attacked Canadian scientist Andrew Weaver - using an argument that the newspaper has admitted, twice before, is flat-out untrue.

So, rude as it is to ask, we have to wonder if Mr. Foster is

a) an incredibly slow learner;

b) not a frequent reader of his newspaper's “Corrections” feature;

c) so ideologically blinded that evidence just doesn't matter to him; or

If you were told that you had a fatal disease and a Doctor told you how to get better, but then an economist came along and told you that the cost of treating you would be too high so it would be better not to do anything - would you sit there and wait to die?

It's that kind of inane logic that governs this quote from Cato Institute Senior fellow, Jerry Taylor who said, “scientists are in no position to intelligently guide public policy on climate change.” Scientists can lay out scenarios, but it is up to economists to weigh the costs and benefits and many of them say the costs of cutting emissions are higher than the benefits”.

Here is a precis of a presentation by University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis. Weaver himself described this as a powerful summary in which the author, Rod Edwards, “expressed everything I tried to say … better han I actually did!”

UPDATED: with details of the Fraser Institute's planned press conference

A Canadian think tank’s “independent” analysis of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is based on out-of-date information and is specifically misleading about the nature of the scientific summary that it presumes to criticize, DeSmogBlog.com President James Hoggan said Wednesday.

The Fraser Institute will release their report in London on Feb.5. Here are the details for our UK friends who might be interested in attending:

Date: February 5, 2007Time: 10am (London time)Location: The Atrium Restaurant (across from the Houses of Parliament), Four Millbank, Westminster

You can find a copy of the leaked document and a briefing note on the Fraser Institute here.

UPDATE:I've just uploaded a new version of the briefing note, without hyperlinks for those who want to print off a copy. Titled “print version.” (KG)

“The enduring debate – such as it is, particularly in Alberta – over the role humans play in global warming – is so divorced from scientific literature as to be a discourse from a distant age or orbit,” says Weaver.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.